Non-resident Nepalis stand to receive special citizenship certificates that guarantee them all rights, except political, with the Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee of the Constituent Assembly endorsing the long-pending demand on Friday. Special citizenships would also be awarded to ex-British Gurkha s. The NRNs and Nepalis retired from the British Army have long been lobbying for dual citizenship.

An NRN is a Nepali living in a foreign country, except in the Saarc region, for more than two years. If the CA endorses the PDCC recommendation, it will be the fourth category of the Nepali citizenship. Other categories include citizenship by descent, naturalised and honorary. Without the political rights, the NRNs will have no right to vote or contest elections. However, they will be authorised to buy or sell property, make investments, and enjoy social and economic rights.

“We concluded that dual citizenship may invite problems in future so we opted for special citizenship,” PDCC Chairman Baburam Bhattarai said after the meeting. Sadbhawana Party lawmaker Laxman Lal Karna, however, said the decision is not new as the first Constituent Assembly had made a similar understanding. He added that the past committee agreed to grant citizenship with political rights to NRNs if they relinquish the citizenship of the country they are residing in and stay in Nepal for five years.

The PDCC also decided that if any person is to acquire citizenship by descent, both their parents should be Nepali citizens of descent. For naturalised citizenship, one parent could be a Nepali citizen.

Parties divided over land ceiling

The PDCC meeting failed to set a land ceiling to be enshrined in the new constitution as the parties came up with divergent views. They were divided whether a ceiling is necessary and how to compensate owners if they are to forgo their land. Parties also debated whether to limit property owned by individuals.

UCPN (Maoist), Rastriya Janamorcha and fringe Left parties demanded a ceiling whereby excess land is nationalised without compensating the owner. They argued that land is state property, not of individuals, and the land beyond the limit comes under the state’s ownership. They argued that the state can distribute land to the needy. Leaders from the Nepali Congress and Madhesi parties, however, opposed the idea defending citizen’s right to property. In that case, the state should compensate owners for the land it acquires.

Published on: 27 September 2014 | The Kathmandu Post